Cheap scope for 452 Varmit.

E

EtienneNavaar

Member
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Location
Quesnel, BC
Help me choose a lower end scope for my new 452 Varmit (well technically, I don't have it yet). My scope budget is around $200. Here are my choices as I see it. Looking for input, a yea or a nay on any particular scope, or a mention of any that I have missed. Thanks.

Bushnell Banner 6-24 x 40 $172
Mueller APT 4.5-14 x 40 $195
Mueller APV 4.5-14 x 40 AO $165
Tasco 8-32 x 44 $160
Tasco 6-24 x 42 AO $120
 
I used 4 Tasco 6x24x scopes on my gopher guns and range rifles. No problems with them in last 4 years. Some are outfitted with Bushnell 3x9x with great results too. Depends a lot on what you shoot (critters or targets) and the distance .
 
Those all look like reasonable choices for $200 scopes. I can say I like the Mueller APV and have one on my 452. I also have a couple of Bushnell 6-24x AO's that are probably the same thing as Tasco's and the magnification is nice, but expect some added bluriness at magnifications over say 14 or 16x. I'd like to try one of those Mueller APT's, because it would be good to have the ability to dial in MOA for drop at distance. I have a cheap Chinese Leupold clone that has that feature, and its fun to play with and works well.
 
I would stay away from the new Tascos - my experience with them has been that clarity goes to hell when you get into the higher magnifications.

No experience on the Muellers

I have had two of the Bushnell Banners. They are not bad for the money. I did notice that I do experience eye strain faster with the Banners than I do with the Elite series scopes. As of now, the Elite 3200s are the lowest level of scope I would put on a rifle.

If you need to stay under $200, I would suggest watching the EE for a quality used scope.

I have a CZ 452 Varmint and it currently wears an Elite 4200 6-24x40. Probably too much scope but it is nice to have the extra magnification when shooting at gophers at 75-100yds (especially when they only stick the tops of their heads out of their holes). The CZs can shoot, but you have to be able to see it first :D
 
gorky said:
I would stay away from the new Tascos - my experience with them has been that clarity goes to hell when you get into the higher magnifications.

No experience on the Muellers

I have had two of the Bushnell Banners. They are not bad for the money. I did notice that I do experience eye strain faster with the Banners than I do with the Elite series scopes. As of now, the Elite 3200s are the lowest level of scope I would put on a rifle.

If you need to stay under $200, I would suggest watching the EE for a quality used scope.

I have a CZ 452 Varmint and it currently wears an Elite 4200 6-24x40. Probably too much scope but it is nice to have the extra magnification when shooting at gophers at 75-100yds (especially when they only stick the tops of their heads out of their holes). The CZs can shoot, but you have to be able to see it first :D
Click to expand...

Not too much available on the EE in the quality dept. for $200.00, you might find a 4-12 Legend, which would be a couple steps up forsure. FS
 
Fassteel said:
Not too much available on the EE in the quality dept. for $200.00, you might find a 4-12 Legend, which would be a couple steps up forsure. FS
Click to expand...

A lot depends on how lucky you are and how picky you are. There are lots of Elite 3200 scopes that go through for less than $200 (though these are usually the lower magnification models). I have seen some decent leupolds go through for less than $200 too (though those are becoming less common).

I am not sure if I am in the minority but I have never regretted spending good money on a good scope. I sure have regretted some of the cheap scopes though. I would rather spend the extra money for something good than be dissatisfied with something inferior.

One other thing I have found with 22s is that if I am shooting one, I am shooting it for hours on end (such as when shooting gophers) or I am shooting at very small targets (like the bench rest bullseyes). I found that eye strain becomes a bigger issue in these cases of extended use or intense concentration and fuzzy optics definitely do not help the situation. This is one reason I end up putting relatively good optics on even cheap little 22s.
 
If you're shooting gophers make sure your scope can get down to 3x magnification at least. I've had plenty of gophers stand in front of me at 5 yards and if you look through your scope at high magnification the focus will be way off.
 
Hawke Varmint II.
I had a Banner, then a Tasco 6-24, but it's the best for the low ball money, I have a 6-24 and the fine Mil-Dot crossHair is helping a lot popping paint balls at 80y. And the glass is still sharp until at least 20x.
$197 here:http://www.canada-shops.com/Stores/siarms/c180863p16334330.2.html

Of course, if you can afford the 4200 AO series, they can't be beat on these rifles
 
Last edited:
gorky said:
I would stay away from the new Tascos - my experience with them has been that clarity goes to hell when you get into the higher magnifications.

No experience on the Muellers

I have had two of the Bushnell Banners. They are not bad for the money. I did notice that I do experience eye strain faster with the Banners than I do with the Elite series scopes. As of now, the Elite 3200s are the lowest level of scope I would put on a rifle.

If you need to stay under $200, I would suggest watching the EE for a quality used scope.

I have a CZ 452 Varmint and it currently wears an Elite 4200 6-24x40. Probably too much scope but it is nice to have the extra magnification when shooting at gophers at 75-100yds (especially when they only stick the tops of their heads out of their holes). The CZs can shoot, but you have to be able to see it first :D
Click to expand...

:agree:What he said.

I was thinking this exact thing. I also have a 6-24X40 AO 4200 on my 452 varmint and a 4-16X40 AO 4200 on my silhouette. Great scopes for a rimfire because the parallax is adjustable down to 10yds.
 
How about $50? The Bushnell line of rimfire scopes has a good thing going for it...The mounts they come with will allow the bolt to clear the ocular lens. Most scopes like the Banners have too large of an eye piece requiring you to use even higher mounts. Most Leupolds are ok, but beyond your budget.
 
for a .22, 24x is too much scope for me. At close range, it's a nuisance to always have to set the focus, 12x-14x is plenty for gophers and such. I had a tasco 6-24 on my 10/22, and took it off and added a banner 4-12x. No regrets.
 
I find thats way too much magnification for a .22. I had a tasco 6-24 on my marlin and hated it. Dark optics, VERY blurry past 14 power, lots of distortion on the edges. I mean, for a $100 scope, it wasn't terrible, but I wouldn't go that route again.
If you're dead set on fairly high magnification, something like a bushnell trophy/legend in a 4-12 would work fairly well.
 
The original poster didn't mentioned caliber as I recall, I have a 452 Varmint and it's a 17 HMR, hence the 6-24 suggestion.
 
wcat said:
The original poster didn't mentioned caliber as I recall, I have a 452 Varmint and it's a 17 HMR, hence the 6-24 suggestion.
Click to expand...

Oops. For some reason i had .22 in my head. Either way, my 452 .17 HMR sports a 3-10x40 and I wouldn't want any more magnification than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom